Abstract: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of GSECE learning model (Guiding, Searching, Experiencing, Communicating, Evaluating) for physics learning in Vocational High School. Effectiveness is determined by its impact on learning outcomes, student responses and student learning activities. This research was conducted at SMK Negeri 7 Jember with sample number 35 student of class X TKJ. Methodology: This research type is quasi experiment with control group design pretest and post test in the experimental group (n = 35), Data collection techniques used tests, questionnaires and observations. Data analysis techniques use independent sample t test to determine the impact of GSECE model on learning outcomes. Percentage technique to determine student response and student learning activities. Result: ressult of research that t count = 4.75 and t table = 1,99 (t count > t table) and P value (0,000<0,05) mean there is difference between experiment group and control group, percentage of student response in experiment group learning with GSECE learning model 78,46% (good category), control group 60,45% (good ), and percentage of learning activity of experimental group studying with GSECE 69,86% (active category), control group 62.92% (active category). Conclusion: the GSECE learning model is effective for physics learning as indicated by significant differences on learning outcomes, good student responses, and active learning category students\' learning.

Andik Kurniawan1, Indrawati1, Sudarti1, Sutarto1, I Ketut Mahardika1, and Iis Nur Asyiah1. Department of Post Graduate Science Education, Jember University, East Java, Indonesia.……………………………………………………………………………………………………....Manuscript Info Abstract……………………. ………………………………………………………………Manuscript History Abstract: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of GSECE learning model (Guiding, Searching, Experiencing, Communicating,Received: 22 November 2017 Evaluating) for physics learning in Vocational High School.Final Accepted: 24 December 2017 Effectiveness is determined by its impact on learning outcomes, studentPublished: January 2018 responses and student learning activities. This research was conductedKey words:- at SMK Negeri 7 Jember with sample number 35 student of class XGSECE learning model, learning TKJ. Methodology: This research type is quasi experiment witheffectiveness. control group design pretest and post test in the experimental group (n = 35), Data collection techniques used tests, questionnaires and observations. Data analysis techniques use independent sample t test to determine the impact of GSECE model on learning outcomes. Percentage technique to determine student response and student learning activities. Result: ressult of research that t count = 4.75 and t table = 1,99 (t count > t table) and P value (0,000<0,05) mean there is difference between experiment group and control group, percentage of student response in experiment group learning with GSECE learning model 78,46% (good category), control group 60,45% (good ), and percentage of learning activity of experimental group studying with GSECE 69,86% (active category), control group 62.92% (active category). Conclusion: the GSECE learning model is effective for physics learning as indicated by significant differences on learning outcomes, good student responses, and active learning category students' learning. Copy Right, IJAR, 2018,. All rights reserved.……………………………………………………………………………………………………....Introduction:-Physics is part of the Natural Science (IPA) the essence of learning requires a process to find physics products in theform of concepts, theories, principles and laws through scientific measures. Therefore, the learning pattern thatshould be applied put forward the process skill approach rather than the outcome [1].

The fact that is often encountered in the field, teachers in doing physics learning more emphasis on aspects ofmastery of the concept. Learning model used was more likely to conventional way that is with lectures and exercisequestions, thus causing learners to be bored, less interested and less active in learning, and less awakening attitude ofcooperation among learners.

Corresponding Author:- Andik Kurniawan. 1534

As a solution to the above problems, a workable solution is to improve the learning process. There is also one of thelearning models that can be proposed is the GSECE learning model. This learning model takes shelter underconstructivism learning which emphasizes that knowledge built into the mind of learners and this learning modelemphasizes the meaningfulness of learning. Constructivist learning is based on the fact that skills and knowledgegained are not passively accepted and memorized but involve the active participation of learners through thoughtand immediate activity so that knowledge will be developed [2]. A truly contextual learning will occur whenstudents (learners) are able to process new information or knowledge in such a way as the student's mind ofreference (memory, experience, and response) [3]. In addition learning in contextual learning tends to look formeaning, search for sensible relationships, as well as search for usefulness between material concepts learned withreal-world life situations.

One of the learning models that can be proposed is GSECE learning model has 5 important stages. Guiding firststage is the teacher gives instructions and directs students to determine the material or topics in accordance with thematerial to be studied. It aims to enable students to gain a higher understanding. According to Ulya states that withteachers give guidance to students in the learning process, it can bring students to a higher understanding [4]. This isin line with Vygotsky opinion which says that an actual child's developmental level with a higher level of potentialdevelopment can be achieved by a child if received counsel or assistance from someone more mature or morecompetent [5]. Another opinion was also delivered by Nwagbo which states with the teacher provides guidance inthe form of illustrations for students until students are able to generalize and conclude will make students able toapply the learning materials widely [6].

The second stage, Searching is the teacher gives the task of looking for information relating to the material or topicsthat can be obtained from reading and or images and video. It aims to provide opportunities for students to exploreideas independently and simultaneously optimize the potential of students to be able to master physics conceptswell. According to Bruner learning activities will work well and creatively if the students find their own conclusionsabout the topics studied so that the concept can be understood more deeply and more lasting in the memory ofstudents [5],[7]-[12]. Further Bajongga says that learning that optimizes the potential in students will fostercreativity and students will be able to find and develop their own facts and concepts and problem solving [13].

The third stage of experiencing the teacher provides an opportunity for students to find the phenomenon orinformation related to the topic of everyday phenomena experienced by students. Learning that connects or linksmaterial or learning topics with the knowledge they have will make learning more meaningful [5], [14],[15]. This issupported by the opinion of Khaerul which states that learning that exposes students to problems in everyday lifecan be more meaningful and meaningful for students [16].

The fourth stage of communicating is the teacher giving the opportunity to students to communicate to peers aboutthe material or topic of the search results and the results of the study based on the experience of students in everydaylife. It aims to train students to communicate as well as to see the extent to which students master the material inlearning activities. According to Piaget the process of exchange of ideas through communication and interactionwith peers and adults plays an important role in the intellectual development of children and the formation ofknowledge in children [5]. In addition, the communication will show the ability of students in understanding thematerial and with communication will also occur interaction and discussion with the group that makes studentsactive in learning [17].

The fifth stage evaluating the teacher evaluates the student's learning outcomes after following the learning. It aimsto obtain information and data that can be used as a basis to determine the level of progress, development, andachievement of student learning, and the effectiveness of teacher teaching. To obtain information and data of anaccurate learning activities about the level of achievement of learning objectives by students it is necessary toevaluate learning activities that can be a test [18].

In relation to the issues discussed and proposed solutions on the advantages of the learning model, an experimentalstudy was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the learning outcomes of the control class using conventionallearning and experimental class using the GSECE learning model. In addition, to see student responses and activitiesof control classes using conventional learning and experimental classes using the GSECE learning model.

1535ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 6(1), 1534-1538

Methodology:-This study is a quasi experiment with the consideration that not all variables can be strictly controlled. The researchdesign used was pre - post test control group design. The design of this study can be seen in table 1 as follows: Group Pretest Treatment Post test A (n=35) O1 X O2 B (n=35) O1 - O2Table 1:- Pretest and post test control group design

The population in this study were the students of class X TKJ in SMK Negeri 7 Jember in the academic year2017/2018. Before determining the control class and experimental class, Leven's test was tested from the dailyphysics value data on the previous material. This is to see the homogeneity of all sample candidates. After the testLeven's test obtained sample class X TKJ 1 with the number of students 35 people as a control group and class XTKJ 2 with the number of students 35 people as an experimental group. The dependent variable in this studyconsists of learning outcomes, student responses and student learning activities. The independent variables consist ofthe GSECE learning model for the experimental group and the conventional learning model for the control group.Data collected in this study include learning outcomes measured by using tests, student responses measured byquestionnaire and student activity measured by observation sheet.

Data were analyzed with independent sample t-test to determine the main difference of independent variable(learning model) to dependent variable (learning result). Descriptive analysis techniques used to describe studentresponses and student learning activities.

Result:-The result of the research described is the learning achievement achieved by the students between the groups afterfollowing the learning model of GSECE (experimental group) and conventional model (control group). The resultsare presented in Table 2. Group n Mean SD t df Sig (2-tiled)Eksperimen 35 78,29 6,34 4,75 68 0,00Control 35 71,14 6,23Table 2:- Results of post test analysis with independent sample t-test

Table 2 shows that the mean post-test scores of the experimental group students were 78.29 (SD = 6.34), and for thecontrol group students were 71.14 (SD = 6.23). It shows that the learning outcomes of students who follow thelearning with the GSECE model is higher than students who follow the learning with conventional teachingmethods. Based on Table 2, t obtained = 4.75 indicates that the value of t count > t table (4.75> 1.99) and P value(0,000 <0.05) then Ho is rejected, meaning that there is a difference between the average value experimental groupexams with an average of control group exam.

Student responses in the experimental group using the GSECE learning model with the control group using theconventional learning model are presented in Table 3. Student Reponse GSECE learning model Conventional learning modelPercentage average 78,46 60,45Category good good enoughtTable 3:- Description of student response value

Based on Table 3 can be described that the response of students in the experimental group learning using GSECElearning model obtained the average value of 78.46 percentage including good category while the student responsein the control group using the conventional learning model obtained the average value of percentage of 60, 45including the category is quite good. From the above data, it can be described that the student response usingGSECE learning model is better than conventional learning model.

1536ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 6(1), 1534-1538

Student activity in the experimental group using the GSECE learning model with the control group using theconventional learning model is presented in Table 4.No Student learning activities indicators Student learning activities GSECE learning Conventional model learning model1 Observe and accept the explanations of teachers and friends 80,00 68,8 during the learning process2 Respond by asking and providing answers during the learning 76,43 58,3 process3 Appreciate and listen to the opinions of teachers and friends 70,71 75,00 during the learning process4 Organize, process information, and solve problems to make 57,86 52,08 decisions5 The overall assessment which includes asking or answering 64,29 62,14 questions well, doing the cooperation in one group well, and having a sense of responsibility for the opinions that have been submitted Percentage average 69,86 62,92 Category active activeTable 4: Description of student learning activity values

Based on Table 4 it can be explained that the student activity in the experimental group using the GSECE learningmodel obtained the average value of the percentage of 69.86 including the active category. Student activity is controlgroup which use conventional learning model obtained by average value percentage equal to 62,92 including activecategory. From the above data, it can be described that in the experimental group using the GSECE learning modelthe students are better than the control group using the conventional learning model.

Discussion:-This study aims to determine the effectiveness of GSECE learning model with learning outcomes, student responsesand student learning activities. From the results of this study indicate that there is a significant difference in theaverage of student learning outcomes of students who learn to use the GSECE model is 78.29 with the group ofstudents who learn to use conventional learning model that is 71.14.

The results of the overall hypothesis testing previously described show that the GSECE learning model through fiveimportant stages of learning has proven superior effectiveness toward learning outcomes, student responses andstudent activities compared with conventional learning models.

The main factor that makes the GSECE learning model more superior lies in its syntax which emphasizes studentsusing all their potential to seek, and find their own concepts and then connect with experience in everyday life. Thelearning model with students looking for, finding and connecting experiences in daily life can be more meaningfullearning [19] and can sharpen intelligence and enable students to respond effectively to learning materials [20].Another relevant study conducted by Mulyasa states that the reasoning that optimizes the potential of studentsseeking, finding and experiencing directly proven to increase student motivation in learning so that students becomemore active in teaching and learning activities [21].

Conclusion:-Based on the research results can be concluded several things as follows. First, the results of physics learningbetween the groups of students who were given learning with the GSECE model better than the group of studentswho were given a conventional learning model. Both student responses in the group of students who were givenlearning with the GSECE model were better than the group of students who were given the lessons with theconventional model. The three activities of the students in the group of students who were given learning with theGSECE model were better than the group of students who were given the conventional learning model.